The Haughtiness of the Priesthood (Isa 65,5)

Several scholars detect critique of the priesthood in Isa 5666 (1). Most noteworthy is Paul Hanson who argues that most of the oracles in Isa 5666 are aimed at what he labels the theocratic party (2). Others, for example Geiger (3) and Rof, limit the prophetic critique of the priests to the first verses in Isa 66 (4). Based on his careful exegesis of 66,3, Rof argues that the legitimate rituals mentioned in the first statement of each couplet can only be identified with those taking place in the temple in Jerusalem. Furthermore, the performance of these rites was the exclusive prerogative of the priests. In view of this, he concludes that Isa 66,3 is an oracle against the Jerusalem priesthood (5). Rofs article has received a variety of scholarly responses. Blenkinsopp adopts his identification of the people in 66,3 with the priests in the Jerusalem temple, and he regards them as being addicted to syncretistic cult (6). In contrast, Smith, in view of his claim that Isa 65,166,4 form one literary unit, argues that Isa 65,1-7 and 66,3 refer to the same activities and have the same target audience. Assuming a wider scope of the latter verses, he draws the conclusion that the prophets criticism goes beyond the priesthoods participation in syncretistic rituals (7).

(1) The present article builds on a small part of my doctoral thesis Priestly Rites and Prophetic Rage. Early Post-Exilic Prophetic Critique of the Priesthood, University of Oxford, 2002. In this article, I have extended my discussion of the different aspects of Isa 65,5, in particular of the perceived contradiction between 65,3-4 and 66,3. I have also added several issues, e.g. the discussion whether ytdq should be understood comparably or as introducing a dative, and the understanding of the Sitz-im-Leben of Isa 65,5. I wish to thank first and foremost Prof. H.G.M. Williamson who supervised my thesis. Further, I am indebted to Ina J. Hartmann who proof-read the final draft of this article. (2) P.D. HANSON, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (Philadelphia 1975). (3) A. GEIGER, Urschrift und bersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhngigkeit von der innern Entwickelung des Judenthums (Breslau 1857) 56. He is to my knowledge the first scholar who identifies the people accused in Isa 66,1-5 with those serving as priests in the temple. (4) There is no consensus among scholars concerning the extent of the oracle in the beginning of Isa 66. There is, however, convincing evidence supporting the textual unity of Isa 66,1-6. See especially E.C. WEBSTER, A Rhetorical Study of Isaiah 66, JSOT 34 (1986) 93-108. He is followed by W.A.M. BEUKEN, Does Trito-Isaiah Reject the Temple? An Intertexual Inquiry into Isa. 66.1-6, Intertextuality in Biblical Writings. Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel (ed. S. DRAISMA) (Kampen 1989) 60. Most recently, J. GOLDENSTEIN, Das Gebet der Gottesknechte. Jesaja 63,764,11 im Jesajabuch (WBANT 92; Neukirchen-Vluyn 2001) 216-217, and B.S. CHILDS, Isaiah (OTL; Louisville, KY 2001) 539-541, both relate to 66,1-6 as a literary unity. (5) A. ROF, Isaiah 66,1-4: Judean Sects in the Persian Period as Viewed by TritoIsaiah, Biblical and Related Studies Presented To Samuel Iwry (eds. A. KORT S. MORSCHAUER) (Winona Lake 1985) 209-212. (6) J. BLENKINSOPP, A Jewish Sect of the Persian Period, CBQ 52 (1990) 10, 17. (7) P.A. SMITH, Rhetoric and Redaction in Trito-Isaiah. The Structure, Growth and Authorship of Isaiah 5666 (VTSup 62; Leiden 1996) 158.

238

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

In this article, I set out to prove that there is no inherent contradiction accepting both the extended unity of 65,166,4(6) (8) and a priestly target of 66,3. Instead, there is evidence of critique of the priesthood especially in 65,5. The people who are targeted in 65,1-7 are quoted in v. 5, saying ytdq yk ybAgtAla yla brq. I shall attempt to determine the most likely interpretation of this phrase and, on this basis, argue that the speakers should be identified with the Judahite priests. 1. The grammatical understanding of Isa 65,5 The speakers in 65,5 say three things: 1. yla brq 2. ybAgtAla 3. ytdq yk It seems likely that the first and the second statements convey the same information. The first expression yla brq can be translated literally as come close to yourself. Such a rendering, however, fits ill with the immediately following phrase ybAgtAla which is a simple command to someone not to come near the speaker: do not draw near to me. Hence, yla brq is often translated as stand by yourself, in the sense do not come near me (9). In support of such an interpretation, the similar expression halhAg in Gen 19,9 seems to indicate stand back from there rather than the literal approach onwards. Similarly, Isa 49,20 attests hbaw ylAhg in a context where it is clear that the people addressed should leave. Hence, the translation of yla brq as do not come near is plausible, despite the different verb and the fact that the following preposition denotes the person addressed (yla brq) rather than the person speaking (ylAhg). Such an interpretation is also supported by the major versions: the LXX (povrrw ajp ejmou'), Vg (Recede a me), TJ (halhl qjr) and S (lhl qwrp) all carry a sense of withdrawal, either from me (LXX, Vg) or from there (TJ and S). The reason for this command is given in the third statement, ytdq yk. This expression is problematic on several levels. On a purely grammatical one, the MT ytdq is pointed as a Qal which is normally intransitive (10). However, ytdq here carries an object suffix. There are two possible understanding of this. We may either assume that the stative Qal, normally meaning to be holy, set apart, can take an object, to be rendered to be holier than somebody. Alternatively, we may repoint the verb to a transitive Piel, to be translated to sanctify/ consecrate somebody. Most of the ancient translations understand this verb intransitively. LXX writes o{ti kaqarov" eijmi = because I am pure using the word kaqarov" = pure rather than holy, and does not attest an object. Similarly, S renders

(8) See footnote 4. (9) Mikraot Gedolot Haketer. A revised and augmented scientific edition of Mikraot Gedolot. Based on the Aleppo Codex and early Medieval MSS (ed. M. COHEN) (Ramat-Gan 1996), Isa 65,5. (10) BDB, 872-873, list two translations: Qal 1. be consecrated, Qal 2. be hallowed (by contact with sacred things, and so tabooed from profane use, or forfeit to sanctuary).

The Haughtiness of the Priesthood (Isa 65,5)

ana dqmd

239

= because I am holy without an object. The Syriac form dqm may support a Piel rather than a Paal in its Vorlage, but it could also show dependence on the LXX (11). TJ renders the saying as nm anykd ana yra, understanding the object suffix as a matter of comparison, i.e., holier than you, as does Symmachus: aJgiwvterov" sou. Finally, the Latin translation found in Origens Hexapla reads sanctus sum tibi = I am holy for you, which supports an understanding of the Hebrew text as taking a dative with reference to you, I am holy. The standard Vulgate text differs drastically from the other major versions with its reading quia immundus es = because you are unclean. This, however, is probably an interpretation rather than evidence of a different Hebrew Vorlage. To sum up, the understanding of the verbal suffix as an indirect object is supported by most of the ancient translations, either understanding it as a dative (holy to/ for you) or as a comparative (holier than you). Looking at how different scholars have understood this expression, we find that most mediaeval commentators advocate the latter sense, i.e. they understand the verbal suffix in a comparative sense. For example, Rashi writes mm rtwy ytrhfw ytdq yk and Radak and Ibn Ezra interpret mm wdq yna. In support of the idea of an intransitive verb taking an object suffix, Ibn Ezra compares ytdq with Jer 10,20 ynwaxy. In contrast, several early critical scholars render the verbal suffix as a dative. For example, GeseniusKautzsch compare ytdq with Zech 7,5 yna yntmx wxh = did you fast at all for me and with Job 31,18 bak ynldg = he grew up to me as to a father, where the indirect object is directly subordinated in the form of an accusative suffix (12). In this context, Delitzsch draws attention to Jer 20,7 (yntqzj = you overpowered me, i.e. you were strong to me) and Isa 44,21 (ynnt al = you will not be forgotten by me), where the verbal suffixes indicate the dative. In view of this, Delitzsch translates Ich bin dir heilig d.i. unnahbar, by which the speaker would mean that he is unapproachable (13). Along similar lines, Torrey translates I am taboo for thee (14). The Masoretic pointing is, however, not accepted by all commentators. For example, Geiger repoints the verb to a Piel and translates bleibe bei dir, komm mir nicht zu nahe, sonst weihe ich dich. In support of his repointing, he claims that the current punctuation is a result of the Pharisaic Halacha, which, seeking to liberate the text of any indication that holiness could be contagious, changed an original Piel to the now attested Qal (15). This
(11) D. BARTHLEMY, Critique textuelle de lAncien Testament (OBO 50/2; Gttingen 1986) II, 454. (12) GKC, 117x. (13) F. DELITZSCH, Das Buch Jesaia (Leipzig 1889) 616. (14) C.C. TORREY, The Second Isaiah (New York 1928) 468. Other scholars supporting the MT are for example BARTHLEMY, Critique, II, 454, J.A. EMERTON, Notes on the Text and Translation of Isaiah XXII 8-11 and LXV 5, VT 30 (1980) 446-450, who translates for I am holy to thee i.e. for I am too sacred for you, S. ACKERMAN, Under Every Green Tree. Popular Religion in Sixth-Century Judah (HSM 46; Atlanta, GA 1992) 167, n. 11, B. SCHRAMM, The Opponents of Third Isaiah. Reconstruction of the Cultic History of the Restoration (JSOTSS 193; Sheffield 1995) 157, and SMITH, Rhetoric, 137, n. 31. (15) GEIGER, Urschrift, 56, 172-173.

240

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

emendation is followed by many critical scholars (16), due mostly to the rarity of an object suffix attached to an intransitive verb. To conclude, it is grammatically possible to maintain the attested Qal form. In fact, the very rarity of this form may support its originality. In other words, it is easier to explain the intransitive reading of LXX, despite its lack of object, as a derivative from a tradition attesting the unusual Qal reading, rather than as a conscious change from the more common Piel form. Furthermore, in response to Geigers claim, it is noteworthy that the Masoretes left the Piel in Ezek 44,19 unchanged. Therefore, the attested Qal form is in my view original. Furthermore, it is not an easy task to determine whether the verbal suffix should be rendered as a comparative than or introducing a dative to/ for. It depends on the immediate context of the verb in question. Nevertheless, a comparative sense for ytdq seems preferable in view of the example from Jer 20,7 (yntqzj) which ideally should be translated you are stronger than I am. Hence, ytdq may best be as I am holier than you, thus stating that the speakers in v. 5 regard themselves as holier than their immediate surroundings. 2. The identity of the speakers Our conclusion above that the speakers in v. 5 considered themselves as holier than their surroundings gives us useful insight concerning their identity. First, how should ytdq be interpreted in the present context? This verb has often been understood to refer not to the standard holiness transmitted by YHWH but to a supernatural power given to the speakers as the result of the previously described rites. The use of the root dq here would thus be blasphemous (17). As far as I am aware, however, this root always refers to holiness connected with YHWH, either attributed to Himself or to the sanctification by Him of a human being/ thing/ place. Therefore, it is in my view more likely that ytdq here also refers to holiness in relation to YHWH rather than to any sanctification stemming from contact with another deity. Secondly, this claim of holiness is commonly understood as the result of the activities described earlier. The syntax of vv. 3-5, where each claim is introduced with an active participle, however, does not indicate a relationship between the different statements as one of cause and result. Instead, my proposal is that this claim of holiness is an indication of the identity of the people speaking, holiness being their normative state. The category of people most suitable for this kind of label is the priesthood. Hanson, coming from another direction, suggests a different reason for
(16) E.g., B. DUHM, Das Buch Jesaia (Gttingen 1922) 476, C. VON ORELLI, Der Prophet Jesaja (KKAT; Mnchen 1904) 220, K. MARTI, Das Buch Jesaja (KHAT; Tbingen 1900) 402, P. VOLZ, Jesaja (KAT; Leipzig 1932) II, 279, n. k, T.K. CHEYNE, Introduction to the Book of Isaiah (London 1895) 368, n. 1, J.L. MCKENZIE, Second Isaiah (AB 20; Garden City 1968) 194. (17) E.g., MCKENZIE, Isaiah, 195, J.D. SMART, History and Theology in Second Isaiah. A Commentary on Isaiah 35, 40-66 (London 1967) 277, and R.N. WHYBRAY, Isaiah 4066 (NCBC; Grand Rapids 1975) 270.

The Haughtiness of the Priesthood (Isa 65,5)

241

such an identification. He argues that the root gn, together with the expressions yla brq and ytdq, all occurring in 65,5, are three of the cardinal technical terms in the priestly language. The root gn is attested in priestly contexts in, e.g., Exod 24,2; 28,43; 30,20; Lev 21,21; Ezek 44,5, 13, 15, while the verb brq occurs in Exod 40,32; Lev 9,7-8; 21,17; 22,3; Ezek 40,46; 42,14 etc. (18). He also interprets the expression ynp l[ in Isa 65,3 as an allusion to the temple (19). Smith criticizes Hansons view by pointing out that the expression ynp l[ is often used as a simple preposition before rather than carrying any cultic overtones. Further, while accepting that the terms gn, yla brq and ytdq are examples of priestly language, he denies that they indicate orthodox cultic activity in the present context (20). From a different angle, Schramm uncovers Hansons inconsistency, in that the latter interprets v. 5 literally while viewing the accusations in vv. 3-4 metaphorically. Instead, Schramm suggests that all the verses should be taken at face value, describing the struggle in the restoration period to establish the orthodox cult of YHWH (21). I agree with Schramm that the rituals in vv. 3-4 indicate actual religious rites which at the time were practiced by people in Judah. Given this, it is possible that some of these rituals may have been part of the worship of YHWH, as understood from the worshippers own perspective. As such, it cannot be excluded that the priesthood in Judah participated in them. Thus, while Schramms critique of Hansons metaphorical reading of vv. 3-4 can be sustained, an identification of the speakers in v. 5 with the priests should not be ruled out. In fact, given the similarity in content between 65,3-4 and 66,3, noted above and assumed to be an obstacle in identifying the target audience of 66,3 with the priesthood, we may actually see the parallels between 65,35 and 66,3 as supporting a priestly identity in both places. In other words, the people targeted in both these places are associated with holiness, either by considering themselves to be holy or by performing holy rituals. Furthermore, they are accused of being involved in non-orthodox worship of YHWH and/ or other deities. Taking these factors together, the most likely interpretation is one of shared identity. Hence, once we acknowledge the possibility that the post-exilic clergy could have been involved in less-than-orthodox rituals, we are free to draw the conclusion that most likely, both 65,3-5 and 66,3 criticize those same priests. Concerning Smiths objections, I agree that ynp l[ is probably not an allusion to the temple. Even so, Hansons identification of the priestly terms gn, brq and dq may remain: while gn and brq occur in several contexts other than priestly, they carry priestly connotations in many texts and the root dq is by its very meaning part of the cultic vocabulary. Taking them separately,
(18) HANSON, Dawn 147-149. His view is adopted by E. ACHTEMEIER, The Community and the Message of Isaiah 5666. A Theological Commentary (Augsburg 1982) 123-124. For a complete list of attested examples, see HANSON, Dawn, 149. Note, however, that he interprets ytdq as a Piel, an understanding I do not share. (19) HANSON, Dawn, 147. (20) SMITH, Rhetoric, 137. (21) SCHRAMM, Opponents, 157.

242

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

we would not have satisfactory evidence for a clerical context, but taking the terms together, we are probably dealing with priestly language. Smith highlights yet another potential difficulty with the identification of the target audience of 65,5 with the priesthood. He states that while he is open to the possibility that priests participated in syncretistic cults, it is most unlikely that the references are only to priests since 65,1-2 appear to address the whole people (22). Smiths critique is justified. The occurrence of the determinations [/ ywg in vv. 1-3 seems to indicate that the whole people, rather than a limited fraction thereof, is accused. I suggest, however, that a solution may be found in the absence of a definite article or a possessive pronoun. The people referred to are called ymb arqAal ywg and rrws [, i.e. a nation who does not call upon Gods name (23) and a rebellious people, rather than the nation and the people. Thus, there is no reason why these persons should constitute the whole nation. Instead, a smaller group of people may be intended, labelled rebellious people (24). Concerning the case of [h in 65,3, I propose that in the light of the specification by the following plural participles, [h should be understood as the persons rather than the (national) people. In view of this, there is no reason to reject the identification of the target audience in 65,5 due to the use of the determinations [/ ywg in the preceding vv. 1-3. 3. Sitz-im-Leben of Isa 65,5 Having concluded on the one hand that a priestly identity of the person speaking in v. 5 is supported by both content and the clerical vocabulary of his speech, and on the other hand that there is no inherent problem with such an identification in view of 65,3-4, we shall now turn to the matter of the Sitz-imLeben of Isa 65,5. Treating the priests saying as a direct quote, addressing a man in second person singular, it is natural to assume that the latter is the author himself. As such, the priests language may be considered a taunt at the prophet who claims that only he and his followers are the true servants of God (65,9) and the ones who will inherit His holy mountain (57,13), i.e. the temple. The priest asks him to yla brq, indicating that the only place where the author can draw near to is himself rather than to Gods altar. Furthermore, instead of approaching the altar, the prophet is not even allowed to approach the priests (ybAgtAla). Lastly, in response to a hypothetical claim of equal or even surpassing holiness, the priest answers ytdq yk, i.e, I am holier than you. 4. The haughtiness of holiness The two expressions ybAgtAla and yla understood in one of two ways.
brq

in 65,5 are often

(22) SMITH, Rhetoric, 137. (23) Repointing the attested inner passive Qal arq to a perfect or an active participle Paal. This change is supported by the LXX (oi{ oujk ejkavlesan) and by the Vulgate (quae non invocabat). (24) Similarly, I suggest that the word ywg in Isa 58,2 refers only to those speaking in 58,3 rather than to the whole people, in contrast to the references to ym[ and bq[y tyb in 58,1, which, due to the possessive pronoun and the specific bq[y tyb, refer to the whole nation.

The Haughtiness of the Priesthood (Isa 65,5)

243

The speaker is warning the people for the latters sake: if the people came in contact with something holy, they would bring upon themselves Gods fatal anger (cf. 2 Sam 6,7) (25). The reading in the Vulgate suggests that the speaker expresses concern for his own holiness, that is fearing that if a common person touched him, he himself would become polluted (26). There are, however, objections to both interpretations. Concerning the second possibility, there is no textual evidence in the MT that the priests feared contact with others lest they themselves become profaned. The concern is always on the people around them. Even the Piel in Ezek 44,19 focuses on the people: the priests had to change clothes before leaving the temple for the benefit of the people outside, rather than for their own sake (cf. Ezek 42,14). Num 18,1-7 emphasizes Gods dangerous holiness, speaking about Levitical service: if a Levite touched any of the holy vessels or the altar, both the Levites and the priests would die (v. 3). Further, the Levites alone were allowed to touch the priests. No stranger was allowed in the priests presence (v. 4), lest he die (v. 7). Thus, the idea that the priests feared pollution of their own holiness is not likely and we may deem the second interpretation unlikely. There are also objections to the first possibility. First, the use of short imperatives in ybAgtAla and yla brq does not seem to mirror any actual concern for the speakers. Rather, these expressions form brusque reprimands. Furthermore, we would have expected the following ytdq to be a Piel form, similarly to Ezek 44,19, to be rendered because I will make you holy which might prove fatal. Given that I deemed the revocalization of ytdq to a Piel unlikely on both linguistical and textual grounds, it is, however, difficult to accommodate such an exegesis. Hence, I maintain that the issue is not the contagiousness of holiness. Instead, the solution lies, in my view, in the comparative sense of ytdq. As already alluded to above, I suggest that the whole saying in Isa 65,5 is a direct quote of something a priest said in response to the prophets implied claim of equal holiness. Thus, the two expressions ybAagtAla and yla brq are yet additional expressions of the priests disdain for their opponents and their own sense of superiority and self-righteousness.

* * *
In this article, I have shown that the person speaking in Isa 65,5 is a priest. I have reached this conclusion by investigating both the grammatical and the contextual aspects of the verse in question. Taken together with its immediate context, 65,5 should therefore be understood as critical towards the Jerusalem clergy. The occurrence of a similar critique, i.e. that of unorthodox worship of YHWH and/ or other deities in 66,3, further supports such an identification.
(25) E.g., DELITZSCH, Jesaia, 616. (26) E.g., J. MUILENBURG, The Book of Isaiah. Chapters 4066 (IB 5; Nashville 1956) 748, who argues that the speakers have become holy as a result of the rites described in vv. 3-4, and fear that contact with others would render them profane.

244

Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer

I suggest that the expression ytdq should be understood as a Qal, taking a direct object indicating comparison. Hence, the speaker in 65,5 expresses his belief that he is holier than you, i.e. holier than the prophet whom he is addressing. Such an understanding of the verb ytdq is supported by several of the ancient versions and by similar syntactical constructions in Biblical Hebrew. Accepting the priestly vocabulary in the longer ytdq yk ybAgtAla yla brq in v. 5a, together with my claim that this uttering fits best to a clerical person, I conclude that Isa 65,5 criticizes the priesthood. University of Birmingham Department of Theology Birmingham B15 2TT
SUMMARY The expression ytdq yk ybAgtAla yla brq (Isa 65,5), is best understood as uttered by one of the priests in Jerusalem. Both the ancient translations as well as contemporary insight in Hebrew grammar support the translation of ytdq as I am holier than you. This indicates that the speaker in v. 5 regards himself as holier than his immediate surroundings. As such, it indicates a priestly identity. The interpretation of the two expressions ybAgtAla and yla brq support this conclusion: their content express the speakers disdain for his opponents and his own sense of self-righteousness. Further, their priestly vocabulary suggests a clerical speaker. Such an understanding complements the claim made by several scholars (e.g., P. Hanson, A. Rof) that the author of Isa 66,3 held a critical disposition towards the priesthood.

Lena-Sofia TIEMEYER